RE: [svnmerge] question about the integrated and avail subcommands

On Wednesday 05 Apr 2006 6:28 pm, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Madan U S <madan@collab.net> wrote:
> > Why do the 'svnmerge integrated' and 'svnmerge avail' commands require
>
> a
>
> > head option(in case the branch is tracked against more than one other
> > branch)?
> >
> > Why cant it list the integrated and available options against all
> > heads available?
>
> "avail" is a remote operation that can take even several minutes on large
> repositories, so I don't think we should be slower by default.
> "integrated" is a local opeartion, so it'd make more sense, but there is a
> consistency issue then.

you know, what we need is 'svnmerge status'!!!

Regards,
Madan.
Received on Wed Apr 5 15:11:07 2006